water tanks as ecosystems - universitat de...

perifèria Número 7, Diciembre 2007

www.periferia.name

revista de recerca i formació en antropologia

1

Water tanks as ecosystems. Local ecosystemic perception for integral management of water tanks in

Tamil Nadu, South India Pere Ariza1, Elena Galán, Tarik Serrano, Victoria Reyes-García - Laboratori

d’Etnoecologia2 - UAB

Resumen

Los tanques de agua (water tanks) ofrecen desde hace siglos soluciones en el Sur de la India a los problemas derivados de la escasez de agua. Son un sistema tradicional de recogida de agua de lluvia ampliamente distribuido por este territorio, que permite una potencial gestión de los propios recursos a nivel local, descentralizada y participativa. Aunque la principal función de los tanques de agua es la irrigación, existen muchos otros usos, funciones y recursos naturales asociados a ellos que permiten la inclusión de muchos más actores de la comunidad, aparte de aquellos agricultores que aprovechan la irrigación. Los tanques de agua configuran además una variedad de paisaje y biodiversidad, creando una valiosa heterogeneidad territorial. La complejidad de este ecosistema debe ser gestionada con una perspectiva integral que considere todos los elementos vinculados y las relaciones entre ellos, entendiendo que los tanques de agua no son simplemente depósitos de agua. Este estudio multidisciplinar intenta demostrar el concepto de tanques de agua entendidos como ecosistemas, describiendo y analizando de una manera profunda novedosa las funciones, usos, recursos naturales y actores. La investigación se centra también en el análisis de la percepción ecosistémica de la población local de algunas comunidades en Tamil Nadu (India del Sur), empleando diversas metodologías antropológicas.

Palabras clave: tanque de agua, ecosistema, gestión integral, percepción social, India del Sur, participación

Abstract

Water tanks offer from many centuries ago solutions in South India for several problems related with water scarcity. They are a traditional water harvesting system wide spread in this territory, allowing a potential decentralized and participatory management of the local population on their own resources. Although water tanks’ main function is irrigation, they have many other uses, functions and natural resources associated, involving stakeholders in the villages apart from those farmers making use of the irrigation. Water tanks provide a variety of landscapes and biodiversity that creates a valuable heterogeneous territory. The complexity of such an ecosystem should be managed with an integral perspective, considering all the elements involved and their relations, and understanding that water tanks are not just water deposits. This multidisciplinary study tries to demonstrate the idea of water tanks as ecosystems, describing and analyzing deeply and in an

1 P.A., E.G., and T.S. designed the approach, collected the data and wrote the article. VR-G supervised the research. 2 Enviar correspondencia a: [email protected]


www.periferia.name


2

unprecedentedly way the functions, uses, natural resources and stakeholders. The research also focuses in the assessment of the ecosystemic perception of the local population of some villages in Tamil Nadu, employing diverse anthropological methodology.

Keywords: water tank, ecosystem, integral management, social perception, South India, participation

Introduction

Water tanks are complex human-made ecosystems involving many natural

resources and providing a wide variety of functions. Furthermore, different

stakeholders actively use water tank’s resources and functions in different ways.

The different ecological, social, and economic elements involved in the ecosystem

are closely related and dependent on the existence of the water tank. The central

presence of the tank gives the essential structure to the territory.

The geography of South India is characterized by the presence of a large number of

tanks, making water tank ecosystems one of the most extended ecosystems in this

region. Historically, the main function of tanks was to store and distribute water for

irrigation purposes, but water tanks provide many resources other than water for

irrigation. Water tanks also entail uses and functions other than those related to

agriculture. Uses refer to activities that involve human’s active utilization and

benefit. Function refers to services generated by water tanks independently of the

human direct benefit, such as the ecological services. Palanisami (2000, 2001),

have shown that water tank ecosystems provide multiple uses (agri-uses, non-agri-

uses as domestic uses). Here, we classify water tanks uses and functions in

economic (i.e., agriculture, livestock, fishing,), ecological (i.e., groundwater

recharge, prevention of soil erosion and floods), and socio-cultural (i.e., domestic,

leisure, festivals). Water tank functions and uses are not independent one from

each other and for one element can share socio-cultural, economic and ecological

aspects. For example, rice cultivation has both ecological and economic uses. The

ecosystemic resilience that water tanks provide in case of disturbances (like

droughts or floods) involves the recuperation of the society, the economy and the

natural habitats and species. Thus, this ecological function has also an impact in the


www.periferia.name


3

economy and the society.

In this sub-chapter, we built on the assumption that water tanks are complex

ecosystems that require an integral management. The section has two related

goals. First, assess people’s perceptions of water tanks. Specifically we analyze

whether users conceive tanks as a water storage system, or whether they consider

them as complex ecosystems with many closely dependent elements. For the

empirical study, we use a primary body of data from two villages in a rocky zone

area of the Villupuram District (Tamil Nadu).

Examining the social perception of water tanks is important to improve water tank

management. If water tanks are perceived and mainly used as an irrigation

infrastructure, then political authorities might argue that other forms of irrigation

(i.e., groundwater, dams) might substitute water tanks without further

consequences for the local population. In contrast, if –as it happens to be the case-

people perceive and use the many functions and resources of water tank

ecosystems, then the substitution of water tanks by other forms of irrigation might

have severe collateral effects on the local population.

In the first part of this sub-chapter, we use primary and secondary data to explain

the water tanks as ecosystems with different resources, functions, uses and the

main stakeholders using water tanks. In the second part, we assess how the

studied population perceived water tanks.

A. Description of water tanks as ecosystems

Water tanks provide different habitats creating a heterogeneous net of

interconnected territories. Water tank ecosystems include the physic area occupied

by the tank, the surrounding spaces, the resources associated with the tank, the

human population living in the area, and the connected water bodies. The area

occupied by tank changes from rainy to dry season. During the dry season, when

the tank is at its lowest, the tank bed becomes a common open land (porombokku)

where several natural resources can be found. Occasionally, the tank bed is also

(legally or illegally) encroached by some farmers who grow seasonal crops on it.

The surrounding spaces of the tank include the agricultural fields, the natural


www.periferia.name


4

spaces like forests, and the human settlements. Both the natural resources and the

human population living around the water tank are key elements of the ecosystem,

because they depend on it and continuously modify it. Last, water tanks are linked

to an extensive net of water bodies, including small ponds (kulams), wells, other

water tanks, and, in some cases, rivers. The net of depending territories and

related water bodies amplifies the ecosystemic relations of a water tank to a large

scale. Thus, the boundaries of the water tank ecosystem are not limited to the area

surrounding the tank, but it has diffuse limits.

Uses and functions of natural resources in water tanks

Water stored in tanks is the main natural resource associated to them. Historically,

water in water tanks was mainly used for agriculture, but also for cattle and as

drinking water. Because water tanks ecosystems are formed by several landscapes,

many other natural resources –other than water- are associated to water tank

ecosystems, increasing the value of the ecosystem from a social and ecological

point of view. Here we distinguish between the economic, socio-cultural, and

ecologic functions of water tank ecosystems, although we acknowledge that some

uses and functions might overlap (Figure 1).


www.periferia.name


5

Ecological Functions• Water conservation• Soil conservation• Protection and sustain of the surronding area ecology• Flood control• Recharge of groundwater• Recharge of surface water of other water bodies

Socio-Cultural Functions• Ensuring livelihood• Domestic uses• Leisure area•Temple festival• Conservation of traditional knowledge and culture

Economic Functions• Development of agriculture• Insurance against low rainfall periods• Livestock uses• Fishing• Duck rearing• Building raw materials• Social Forestry• Tree crops• Auctions• Silt collection as fertilizer

• Grazing• Drinking

• Bricks• Tiles• Pottery

• Trees• Grass• Fish

• Avoid erosion• Creation of organic layer of silt

• Well• Kulam, Oorani, Kuttai, etc.

• Other water tanks• Kulams

• Drinking water• Washing• Toilet• Bathing

Water Tank Ecosystem

Functions and uses scheme

• Provision of many habitats• Conservation of biodiversity

Figure 1. Functions and uses scheme.

Water tank have a clear economic use for villagers, involved or not in irrigation.

Most natural resources associated to water tanks are considered village’s common

property. Villagers exploit natural resources in two different ways so the benefits

are shared among the entire village. First, villagers celebrate public auctions to

award the exploitation of natural resources of economic importance (i.e., trees,

grass) to a single user. The money paid on the auction is commonly used as a fund

to the village and is invested for the common benefit (mostly to fund temple

festivals), or shared between the members of the village. Second, the exploitation

of minor natural resources (i.e., silt for manure or medicinal plants) is open access.

Any person from the village can access those resources. For example, the collection

of silt from the tank bed to be used as manure for the agricultural lands is open to

any villager. In sum, the wide variety of natural resources found in tank


www.periferia.name


6

ecosystems has an economic use for many people, other than farmers.

Besides its economic uses, water tank ecosystems also provide many social and

cultural uses and functions. Water tanks show the footprint of the relation of the

Tamil culture with the environment through using it as a sacred place where

traditional rituals take place3. For example, during some festivals the tank-bed is

used as a stage for dramas, and sometimes cattle is sacrificed in the tank. Tanks

are also used in parts of the celebration of Hindu weddings and in burial

ceremonies. Also related with the preservation of traditional religious rituals, the

potter community makes some sacred goddess statues with the soil of the tank.

Tanks also have an active role in the preservation of ethnobotanical knowledge,

especially medicinal knowledge, because most of the wild medicinal plants are

found in the tank’s surroundings. Last, other important social use, sometimes not

mentioned by the local population but very common, is as a toilet place. Bushes

around the water tank provide a hidden and private area and water supply. Women

appreciate more than men the privacy of bushes in the water tanks to use them as

toilets.

Water tanks are also central in the ecology of the area, providing the necessary

ecological functions for a healthy environment. Water tank ecosystems include

many types of different habitats, such as lacustrine, cereal cultivated fields, forests,

tree plantations, shrub lands, riparian, or urban. Biodiversity of tank ecosystems

can potentially be very high. Biodiversity guarantees the necessary functional units

to provide and to ensure the supply of environmental services. Conservation of

biodiversity is also an ecological insurance for the future that allows the ecosystem

to regulate itself to the proper stable environmental conditions. The provision and

creation of different habitats and the conservation of biodiversity increments tank

ecosystems strength against ecological disturbances, generating high socio-

ecosystemic resilience. The conservation of animal and plant species is a

consequence of the ecological functions that tanks provide. Tanks are bird’s

3 Interviews at study cases and Interview with Raghunatan, Director of Center for Ecology and Rural Development.


www.periferia.name


7

sanctuaries and they help to preserve the avifaunal biodiversity. Tanks are very

important for wetland and field birds, but also for migratory birds, which have

adapted to use the tanks as a necessary place to rest and eat during their

migrations. The dead storage of the tank has also the function to keep alive fish

and other aquatic animals in the tank during the dry season.

In sum, water tanks are fundamental to conserve the dynamics of the ecology of

the area. As explained before, water tanks are a central part of the territory,

supporting and connecting many of its different ecological compartments (i.e.,

water, biota and soil), and creating a balance between the human actions exploiting

the territory and the reposition and rehabilitation of the natural resources and

dynamics.

Bellow we describe the natural resources associated to the tank and their main

economic, social, and ecologic functions. Previous authors have provided

descriptions of the agricultural use of water from water tanks (Mukundan 1988,

Janakarajan 1991, Palanisami and Easter 2001, Vaidyanathan 2001, Mosse 2003),

so here we only provide a brief description of the resource water and we focus on

other six natural resources dependant on the existence of water tank ecosystems:

trees, grass, other non-timber plants, fish, other wild animals, and soil.

Water: Historically, the development of tanks in South India is linked to the

development of agriculture (Mosse, 2003). South India climate is determined by

intense monsoons and severe long dry periods. Agriculture could not have been

developed with the current crop production in the area without water tanks. Thus

the most salient economic function of water tanks is the storage and provision

water for the irrigation of crops. The existence of tanks allows the growth of crops

along the year providing a supply of water for irrigation during part of the dry

season and recharging the groundwater depending on ground characteristics

(Mosse, 2003).

The most evident ecological function of water tanks is to preserve rainwater for

periods of drought. Water tanks preserve water in the surface but also recharge

groundwater through percolation. Furthermore, water from tanks might recharge


www.periferia.name


8

other water bodies like other tanks or kulams through channels or groundwater

flows.

Another important ecological function of tanks is to prevent floods. The climate

characteristics of the area, with very heavy rains during very short periods make all

South India a flood-risk area. Historically, water tanks control and protect from

floods keeping closed the run-off waters and distributing the surplus water during

periods of heavy rains. In case of poor maintenance of water tanks and canals, risk

of floods becomes a major problem to the entire population and territory.

Water from tanks has also had a key socio-cultural function: to provide the basic

supply of drinking water for the population. Through the history, villagers have

used water from the tank and dependent kulams to drink. Water bodies were not

polluted with fertilizers and pesticides, thus the water was apt for human

consumption. Nowadays most drinking water come from pipping networks,

generally supplied in rocky zone with water from a big well constructed inside the

tank beds. Pipping networks use the groundwater available from the tanks’

recharge. Thus, to this day, drinking water in rural villages of rocky areas is

associated to water tanks.

Washing vessels and clothes are other very extended domestic uses of the water in

the tank. Women wash vessels directly on the tank, on irrigation canals, wells, or

kulams. Villagers also use tanks to wash or refresh cattle, and even to wash

vehicles.

Last, bathing in the water tanks is most common when tanks are full of water, at

the end of the rainy season. Bathing in the tank does not only have hygienic

reasons, but is also done for leisure. When the tank bed is empty of water, there is

a flat open space that is used in many cases as a playground for children or to

practise sports like cricket.

Trees: A variety of trees are key elements of the water tank ecosystem due to their

important uses and functions. Trees may be located almost everywhere in the tank

ecosystem, but they mainly grow in the tank’s bund, the tank bed, at the edges of

agricultural fields, on the streets of the villages, and besides the main roads. The


www.periferia.name


9

most important uses of trees are the human consumption of fruits and the use of

logs for firewood and timber. For example, in the study area, enormous tamarind

trees are commonly found besides the roads and their fruits are consumed locally.

Wild trees such as Prosopis juliflora and Acacia nilotica are mainly used as timber

and firewood. Fruits like coconuts and palm nuts are also consumed or used to

make liquor. The big leaves of the palm trees are used to construct light roofs and

walls of the traditional houses in the villages. During the 1960’s the Forest

Department of Tamil Nadu implemented programs to encourage the growth of fast-

growing tree species inside the tank bed. Following this program, species such as

Prosopis juliflora or Acacia nilotica are auctioned and harvested after about 20

years (Palanisami 2001).

Trees also provide important ecological functions such as creating a micro-climate

which refresh the temperature of the area, they purify the air, and they are the

living place of many animal species.

Grass: Grass is especially abundant in most of water tanks during the dry season,

when they occupy most of the tank bed. One of the main species of grass in the

water tanks of Tamil Nadu is a perennial grass called Vetiver (Vetiveria zizanioides).

Vetiver grows when the surface water on the tank bed empties after the rainy

season, leaving an open space in the remaining area. This long and hard grass has

important economic uses since it is used as construction material to build the roofs

of many houses. It is also fodder for the cattle. Weed infestations and

encroachment of the tank bed are now reducing the quantity of grass available.

Other type of soft grass also grows on the tank bed. Soft grass is important for the

grazing activities of the villagers owning livestock, because it provides fodder for

cattle even in the season when no other food is available.

Other non-timber plant species: Bushes and aquatic plants found in water tanks

also have different uses and functions. For example, many plants have medicinal

properties in the leaves or sap. Some are used for cooking as spices or flavours, to

make oils and lubricants or liquid fuels, or even to prepare poisons. Villagers also

use bushes as domestic fuel.


www.periferia.name


10

Fish: Fish growing in the various water bodies associated to the water tank is an

important source of food for villagers. Fishes grow naturally in the different water

bodies, although new development programs incite villagers to often introduce

them to increase fish production. During the dry season, most of the tanks are

emptying of the remaining water, in some cases the villagers empty completely the

water of the tank, in order to catch the fishes with ease. The access to fish differs

from village to village (free access to all, customary rights for fishermen community

who sell them to local markets, right given to the person(s) who took the auction

and sell them). Whatever the case, villagers consume fishes.

Other wild animals: In addition to fish, water tank ecosystems are the natural

habitat for many other wild animals. The diversity and quantity of fauna vary a lot

depending on the area. The tank provides an aquatic ecosystem in a dry and hot

area where it creates a proper habitat for many different lacustrine and aquatic

animals. Birds like ducks, herons, partridges, and pigeons are important groups of

wild animals inhabiting the tank ecosystem. Some villagers may hunt those birds

for meat or feathers. Villagers also take the eggs of some species, which are

considered as delicatessen. Crabs, snails, and shellfishes are also commonly

collected from the tanks and other water bodies like kulams and consumed or used

to prepare medicines and manures. Many other types of animals like little

mammals, snakes, frogs, and lizards live in the tank ecosystems, and they can be

exploited or not by humans depending on the village.

Soil: The soil of the tank ecosystem is also a valuable natural resource for

villagers. The natural processes in the tank ecosystem generate several types of

soils, being the silt the most important for human uses. Silt has a high value as

fertilizer for cultivated lands. Silt is mostly found on the tank bed, in the central

part where water accumulates forming a layer of black soil very rich in organic

matter and nutrients. The run-off water collects many different materials, such as

leaves, branches, and humus, in their way from the catchment area to the tank.

Those materials accumulate and decompose on the tank bed, creating a new layer

on the land. Villagers collect the silt from the tank, transport it, and spread it in

their cultivation fields as fertilizer. Villagers also exploit the red clay from water


www.periferia.name


11

tank ecosystems to make bricks and tiles. The red clay is available in many tank

beds due to its accumulation in stagnant water’s areas, collected from catchment

areas rich in this material.

By controlling surface water flows, tanks also provide the ecological function of

avoiding soil erosion, thus preserving the necessary layers of soil to keep the fertile

lands. The creation of a layer of silt on the tank bed and subsequent distribution

along the fields by farmers also contributes to create and maintain the quality of

soil in the area.

Stakeholders in water tank ecosystems

Because water tanks involve many resources, uses, and functions, they also affect

a variety of groups of users and beneficiaries. Each group has a different interest

on the uses, functions and resources of the tank ecosystem, and therefore interacts

in a different way with it. Some of the groups have more power than others to

manage and make decision that will affect the transformation of the ecosystem.

Some groups influence only the ecosystem transformation without being directly

involved in the management. Below we describe the different groups of interest

found in the area.

The interest of the farmers landholders on the water tank ecosystem depends on

the type and surface of land owned. Agricultural lands around tanks are usually

classified as irrigated (nanjai) or dry land (punjai). For example, according to the

Tamil Nadu Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act (TNFMIS) only farmers

having nanjai land are legal members of Water Users Associations (WUA)4. In

practice, not all the nanjai farmers are involved in the management of the tank

through this institution. Some rich farmers, well’s owners, and encroachers, may

not formally participate in the WUA, but they influence water tank management

through their influence in village’s social life, given that they have a high rank in

the local social hierarchies. Farmers having punjai land are not legally involved in

the WUA, but they are also important stakeholders in water tank ecosystem,

4 According the TNFMIS, the WUA are the institution that should manage the water tanks. The roles and functions of WUA are explained in chapter 6 of this book.


www.periferia.name


12

because they are groundwater users and potential participants in the auctions of

natural resources.

Differences of interest among farmers can also be due to the total surface owned.

Big, small, and marginal farmers5 occupy different social positions and roles within

the society. The social position established by the socio-economical differences

(social class) affects the uses and interests about the tank ecosystem of different

groups. The big farmers have a greater opportunity to be the highest bidder in the

auctions. The marginal farmers and landless people are more dependent on the

natural resources in free access offered by the tank ecosystem. Last, the

hierarchical structure of the caste system also affects the role and the access to

uses and resources of different caste groups as it will be explained in the results.

Landless people constitute a diverse group which have interests on the tank uses,

functions, and resources that depart from those of farmers. The agricultural

labourers and shepherds are direct users of tanks although they do not own land.

As persons working in the fields, agricultural laborers depend on the tank for their

daily work, like farmers. Shepherds use the water and the grass for rearing cattle.

Some landless people use the grass in the tanks for roofing their house and their

stall. Fishermen and duck owners might not use the tank daily, but they do in

some seasons. Some nomads often hunt wild animals or fish if there is no auction

procedure in the tanks.

There are also some gender differences referring to the uses of the tank

ecosystem. Women make more domestic uses, washing clothes and vessels and

collecting firewood, apart from their agricultural tasks, as we will see in the results

in our study cases.

Finally, the rest of villagers with non-agricultural occupation (shop owners,

taxi and lorry drivers, students, road construction workers, tailors, building

constructors, teachers, innkeepers, etc.) are also indirect beneficiaries of water

tanks. All the residents in a village have water tank benefit from diverse functions

5 The common classification of landholding within administration and economists consider the following criteria: > 5 Ha: big farmers, 2.5-5 Ha: small farmers,


www.periferia.name


13

of the water tank, recharge of drinking water wells, uses of wells, revenues of the

auctions spent in the temple festivals. Villagers also benefit from the many

ecological services of water tanks (i.e., prevention of floods). Hence, the entire

village benefit from the water tanks in a direct or indirect way.

The complex village society is then, an important element of the tank ecosystem

that transforms it through its involvement with the economic and socio-cultural

uses, within the net of ecological relations of the tank ecosystem elements.

B- Assessing the ecosystemic perception of the society

To compare the local perception of water tanks with their current management, we

examined whether people perceive water tanks as ecosystems or whether they

mainly perceive them as irrigation infrastructures, without understanding the

relations of the diverse elements. To do so, we conducted field research in the

upper and western part of the Kaluvelli watershed, in the Villupuram district of

Tamil Nadu.

I-Methods

We collected data during a four-month internship with the IFP (Feb-May 2007).

Research was conducted in two villages, Endiyur and Attur, both at about five

kilometres to the east of the nearest city, Tindivanam. We selected the villages

according to six criteria. First, both villages have non-system tanks that belong to

the Public Works Department (PWD) and Panchayat Union (PU). Non-system tanks

are more dependant on rain water than tanks connected to rivers. Second, both

villages are located in a pediplain rocky zone. Wells in rocky zones are less deep

than wells in alluvial area due to the hardness of the rocks and the lack of the

technology to dig deeper wells. The first two criteria assure that villagers depend on

the tank for irrigation, and thus increasing the potential importance of the tank for

the villages. Third, in both villages there were functioning Traditional Irrigation

Institutions. Fourth, both villages celebrate auctions of natural resources from the

water tank. Auctions might influence the importance of the tank for the livelihood

and for the potential ecosystemic perception of the local population. Last, villages

differ in the presence of modern irrigation institutions (fifth criterion). In Endiyur


www.periferia.name


14

there were two Water User Association implemented by one NGO (Palmyra) that

promotes tank rehabilitation's activities. In Attur there were no modern irrigation

institutions implemented. The presence of modern institutions should affect

villagers ecosystemic perception of water tanks. The presence of the NGO is

another important criterion.

a) The setting

Endiyur is a suburban village with more than 3000 inhabitants in about 665

households (Census of India, 2002). About 95% of Endiyur’s population belongs to

the vanniar caste (Most Backward Caste, MBC). The remaining 5% belong to other

MBC castes such as assari, ambattan, and dobi. The main economic activity in

Endiyur is agriculture (80% of the active population) (Suseela et al. 2006). Most of

the households in Endiyur (73%) are formed by small or marginal farmers and only

10% by big farmers (with more than 5 acres). About 17% of households in Endiyur

do not own any land.

Attur, is a small village with about 1350 inhabitants in 290 households. The village

is divided between the Ur and the Colony. In the Ur live the Backward Caste, BC

(naidu, 24%), the Most Backward Castes (vanniar, 37%), and Other Caste, OC

(reddyar and muslim, 4%). In the Colony live people from the Scheduled Castes

(SC) (most of them adi dravidar, 34%) and some christians, BC (1%). As in

Endiyur the main economic activity in Attur is agriculture. Most of the households

belong to small and marginal farmers (58%), and only 5 % to big farmers, who

mostly live in the Ur. About 37% of the households are landless and most of them

live in the Colony.

Both villages have two non-system tanks. The two tanks in Endiyur are called

Periya Eri and Chinna Eri, and the two tanks in Attur are called Attur Union Tank

and Aranguti Eri. The PWD is responsible for the two big tanks (Periya Eri and Attur

Union Tank) and the Panchayat Union for the two small ones (Chinna Eri and

Aranguti Eri). At the local level, the institutions involved in the tank management

are the nattamais, the village Panchayat, and the nanjai farmers themselves. In

Endiyur there are also two WUA, one for each tank.


www.periferia.name


15

b) Data collection

We collected qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data was collected

through the research, but mostly during the first month of field work, and

contributed to provide a general description of 1) the water tank ecosystem and 2)

the role of all the stakeholders and institutions involved in the use and

management of the tank ecosystem. Methods of qualitative data collection used for

a ecosystemic description include participant observation, participatory rural

appraisal (PRA), open-ended interviews with key informants, and a qualitative

environmental diagnosis.

To assess the local perception of water tanks, we collected quantitative data using

free listings, pile sorts, and knowledge and use tests. We conducted free

listings to generate a comprehensive list of local functions of water tanks (Weller

1998). The free listing method consists in generating lists of elements that are

related with a cultural domain. In our case the objective of the free listing was to

get a list of the tank ecosystem domain formed by all its resources, uses, and

functions. We used free listings in both villages with a stratified sample of 54

people that included the various groups with expected variation in the perception

about the water tank ecosystem, such as men and women or people with different

types of occupation and land. Every person was asked “ Why do you think the

water tank is important for the village?”. We selected some items from the results

and added some other elements from the literature and from the qualitative data

collection, to elaborate cards with drawings representing village’s elements. We

prepared 28 items cards (see Fig# 7.3) to conduct the pile sort method. Pile sorts

are used to assess the relations that people make among the different elements of

the water tank ecosystem. We asked a total of 44 people drawn from a stratified

sample in each village to sort the pictures in piles according to their similarities

(Bernard 1995).

To better understand differences in people’s knowledge of tank ecosystems, and to

check if knowledge relates with daily activities and uses, we carried out a

knowledge and use test. This method was useful to understand the differences

between different stakeholders. We asked a stratified sample of informants


www.periferia.name


16

(n=109) to answer 11 theoretical questions about the resources and functions of

the tank, seven questions about their use of water tank resources and functions,

and two questions about water tank management. Theoretical questions included

questions that aimed at assessing informant’s perception of the ecosystemic nature

of tanks, such as, ecological functions of the trees in the bund. Thus a higher score

in this part indicates higher knowledge of the ecosystemic nature of the tank. The

questionnaire about the use of the water tank included a set of questions on the

many possible uses of tanks, such as washing clothes and using silt from the tank

as manure. Thus, a higher score in the practical part indicates more diverse uses of

the tank’s resources and functions. The management part included opinion

questions about who should be in charge of managing the water tanks. All the

questions were in a multiple-choice format. People’s answers were classified

according their high or low knowledge or use about water tanks having a numeric

mark in each question. To analyze responses we generated two different scores

adding the correct responses to each part of the questionnaire, one for the

knowledge questions and one for the use questions.

To analyze the data collected through freelisting, we calculated: 1) The frequency

measures the people who told each item; 2) The average rank of how each item

was on average ordered in the list of respondents; and 3) a Saliency index that

takes into account at the same time the frequency and the average rank of the

element in the respondents list. The Saliency Index evaluates the importance of an

item in the all the lists (see Table #7.1). To analyze data from pile sort, we use

non-metric multidimensional scaling to create a chart (see Figure #7.2) with

clusters of elements. To analyze responses to knowledge and use test, we did two

analyses. One was to analyze each single question because to answer correctly one

question meant to have specific knowledge about one ecosystemic relation. The

other one was to sum for each individual the marks of the questions of each part of

the questionnaire to get a mean to compare different groups. To analyze the

knowledge and use scores, we used t-test and chi-square test.


www.periferia.name


17

II-Results of the study: Local perception of tank ecosystem

In the freelisting exercise, informants listed a total of 51 different reasons why

water tanks are important for the village. On average each informant listed eight

items in free listing (SD=3) The shortest list had two items and the longest 17.

None of the respondents mentioned only the purpose of storing water, which can be

interpreted as that nobody would think that the tank is a device with the only

purpose to store water. The length and diversity of items in the lists are the first

indicators that people do recognize many of the different uses and functions of

water tanks.

The maintenance of crops was single out as the most important and salient item in

our lists. 80% of the people interviewed mentioned crops, and on average crops

were mentioned as the second item in free listing (Table 1). But although crops was

the most important item in free listing, it is worth mentioning that as much as 20%

of the people interviewed did not mention crops when being asked to list the

reasons why water tanks are important for the village. If we put together “crops”

and “irrigation”, we still find that as much as 7% of the people interviewed did not

mention any of these two uses.

Among the 15 more salient items we can find ten direct utilitarian functions of the

tank, eight economic, social and ecological uses of water, and seven natural

resources and their uses. We highlight here the high saliency of two elements not

related with agriculture: fish and drinking water.

We run the same data using only parts of the sample. We found that using trees as

firewood and washing clothes were more salient for women than for men in the

sample. The people with occupations related with agriculture mentioned more

“recharge of wells” and less “drinking water” and “fish” than people working in

other occupations. For landless people “drinking water for the cattle” and the “grass

for the roofs” were more salient than for landholders, who in turn give more

saliency to “irrigation” and “auctions”. Finally the farmers having nanjai land sorted

as more important the “silt used as manure” and “recharge of wells” than farmers

with punjai land.


www.periferia.name


18

Item Frequency % Avg. rank Saliency

1 Crops 43 80 2.093 0.700

2 Irrigation 25 46 2.840 0.377

3 Drinking water for cattle 29 54 3.759 0.372

4 Fish 33 61 5.515 0.285

5 Drinking water 23 43 3.826 0.283

6 Recharge of wells 20 37 3.700 0.260

7 Water storage device 14 26 3.000 0.190

8 To wash clothes 19 35 6.211 0.175

9 Grass to make roofs 15 28 4.933 0.172

10 Trees 21 39 6.000 0.168

11 Grass 16 30 5.500 0.150

12 Firewood 16 30 6.438 0.135

13 Bathing 15 28 6.333 0.128

14 Silt used as manure 14 26 6.929 0.111

15 Auction of fish 14 26 7.143 0.102

Table 1. General results of the 15 first elements from the free listing sorted by Saliency (n=51).

Results from pile sorting concur with results from free listings. Figure 2 shows

results from a non-metric multidimensional scaling with pile sort data from

informants in the two communities. The clusters should be interpreted as elements

related among them by the informants. Most resources and functions appear

clustered on the left-hand side of the graphic and related to water tank, meaning

that informants associated those different uses together with ecological relations

among them.

There are three main clusters. One cluster relates to the water tank. A second

cluster constitutes a household or domestic group (man, woman and house), and

the third cluster relates to management (government, nattamai and festival). The

tank is situated as the central element in the main wide group of related

elements (see Fig 2, marked with light blue filled circle). The graph suggest that

villagers demonstrate knowledge about some ecological relations like recharging

wells, strengthening the bund with trees, processes linked to the quality of water,

or knowing the best location to take silt from the tank bed.


www.periferia.name


19

Inside this wide cluster, we can find several subgroup. One group includes way of

water (canals, rain, flood, crops, supply channels (odais), groundwater recharge,

wells, etc.). Another group includes elements related to groundwater (formed by

drinking water, wells and kulams). And a third group includes natural resources

found in the eri (grass, fish, silts, trees) and uses like washing clothes and the

cattle rearing.

Items that in the graph appear close to the tank are elements that are located

physically in the tank or direct related uses. Items that in the graph appear far

from the tank group are those elements with a higher abstract and indirect relation

with the tank. There are some elements that are between two domains in the

people’s perception (auctions and firewood).


www.periferia.name


20

Bath

House

Man

Woman

Festival

Nattamai

Government

Flood

Games

Firewood

Auctions

Cattle

Washing clothes

Birds

Kulams

WellDrinking water

Medicinal plants

RainCrops Silt

OdaiFish

Grass

Canals

Trees

GW recharge

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

-1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2

BathHouseManWomanFestivalNattamaiGovernmentFloodRainGamesFirewoodAuctionsCropsSiltCattleWashing clothesBirdsOdaiKulamsFishWellDrinking waterGrassCanalsERITreesMedicinal plantsGW recharge

Figure 2. Multidimensional scaling of pile sort exercise.

Three main domains are highlighted: 1) water tank group (circle filled in light

grey): with three subgroups: Groundwater (points circle); Way of water (dark grey

continuous circle); General uses (lines circle); 2)Households or domestic group; 3)

Management at the elite level.

We used results from the ‘knowledge and use test’ to assess the correspondence

between knowledge and use of the water tank ecosystem by the villagers. We

found a positive and statistically significant correlation between individual

knowledge and use scores. Results from a Pearson correlation between individual


www.periferia.name


21

knowledge and use scores had a coefficient of 0.34 (p=0.0003; n=109). The low

correlation coefficient can be due to recent changes in some practices, such as the

use of artificial fertilizers. For example, we found that the 80% of the people

related with agriculture know where is the better place to take silt to use as manure

(near the sluice, located in the bund), but only the 48% of the farmers really use

this resource from the tank. This means that when there are low values of

correspondence between knowledge and use shown by the villagers, they are in

general related to external factors outside the villagers’ control. These external

factors are mainly related to economic decisions, when there is not competition for

the external alternatives of use and resources away from the tank ecosystem, like

the artificial fertilizers instead of using silt as manure.

Beyond to provide a tool to check the correspondence between the knowledge and

use, the knowledge and use test was also useful to get some results about the

differences among groups.

We also analyzed differences in knowledge and use scores according to individual

attributes (Table 2). We found that farmers and agricultural labourers had a higher

knowledge score (mean=18.2) than people with other occupations (mean=14.6).

The difference of means between the two occupational groups was statistically

significant (p


www.periferia.name


22

Mean SD Obs Mean SD Obs T-Test of comparisons of means (p)

Occupation Farmers and agricultural labourers

18.2 3.9 74 Other occupatio

ns

14.6 3.9 35 0.000

Land ownership

Land owners 18.1 3.9 75 Landless 14.7 4.0 34 .0001

Type of landholding

Nanjai farmers*

18.8 3.9 46 Punjai farmers

15.8 4.0 63 0.0001

Training Have received training

20.0 4.3 17 No training

16.5 4.0 92 .0011

Participation* Yes 18.7 4.5 59 No 16.4 3.9 37 0.007

Gender Male 17.8 4.1 48 Female 16.5 4.3 61 0.05

Caste Scheduled caste

18.2 4.4 19 Other castes

17.2 4.3 77 0.33

Note1: *Participation refers to people who report having been involved in tank management duties at whatever level (Panchayat, Gramma sabha, SHG, NGOs, and WUA) and in some schemes (NREGA).

Nanjai includes the farmers having nanjai land and farmers having nanjai and punjai lands. The punjai farmers category includes the people who only have punjai land.

Table 2. Comparison of Mean of Knowledge Scores in Tests of Multiple Choice in different groups.

We conducted a similar analysis for use scores. Recall that the scores of use do not

relate to a higher intensity of uses, but a higher diversity of uses. We did not find

significant differences in use scores associated to individual socio-economic

characteristics (see Table 3). Most of the groups in the sample have similar scores

in the questionnaire about the use of the water tank, regardless of their occupation,

land ownership, type of landholding, training in water tanks, and gender with one

exception. When dividing the population according to caste, we found that people

who belong to a scheduled caste had significantly higher diversity of uses of the

water tanks than the people who belong to other casts (p=0.03).


www.periferia.name


23

Mean SD Obs Mean SD Obs T-Test of comparisons of means (p)

Occupation Farmers and agricultural labourers

3.9 2.3 74 Other occupations

3.4 2.4 35 0.12

Land ownership

Land owners 3.5 2.2 34 Landless 3.8 2.4 75 0.28

Type of landholding

Nanjai farmers*

4 2.4 46 Punjai farmers

3.6 2.2 63 0.20

Training Have received training

3.3 2.7 17 No training 3.8 2.2 92 0.20

Participation Yes 2.3 1.4 59 No 2.3 1.3 37 0.36

Gender Male 4.1 2.1 48 Female 3.5 2.4 61 0.10

Caste Scheduled caste

2.7 1.3 19 Other castes 2.1 1.3 77 0.03

Table 3. Comparison of Mean of Use Scores in Tests of Multiple Choice in different groups.

Discussion

In the following section we discuss the general results for the entire population and

the results by categories about the ecosystemic perception of the people.

We want to start by saying that the evaluation of such an abstract concept as the

perception (or awareness) of the ecosystemic nature of water tanks is a difficult

task. Results from our three surveys suggest that people do have an integrated

perception about the ecosystem, although we set the factors that determine the

differences between groups of people.

Bellow we outline the factors that determine the differences of perception among

social groups.

We found that respondents’ occupation is related to people’s perception of the

ecosystemic nature of water tanks. Villagers working with agriculture (farmers and

agricultural labourers) have a higher ecosystemic perception of the water tank than

villagers who do not work in agriculture. The finding can be explained due to the

experience in the field in contact with elements of tank ecosystem. For example,

people with agricultural occupation know more and have a better understanding

about the ecological relations between the environmental compartments, as the

concept of “water quality” asked in the first question of the knowledge test shows.


www.periferia.name


24

Thus, 50% of people working in agriculture could explain that nutrients dissolved in

water are different depending on the source of water, while only the 25% of people

with other occupation knew it. Similarly, more farmers and agricultural labourers

could also explain the ecological functions of the dead storage6. 34% of people

working in agriculture mentioned that the dead storage was useful to recharge

wells versus 11% of people with other occupations. We also found differences

related to the occupation of the informants on the knowledge about the best place

to take silt from the water tank, and the knowledge and participation in the

auctions of natural resources. 89% of farmers and agricultural labourers knew the

location of silt versus 58% of the people with other occupations. Farmers and

agriculture labourers know also the procedure of the auctions, having a more active

participation (offering a higher bid), than people with other occupations. Performing

cross tabs and Chi-square test we find a significant difference between these two

different groups of occupation.

Results from tables 2 and 3 show that, among the people who are dedicated to

agriculture, landowners have a more integrated perception of the water tank

ecosystem than landless agricultural labourers. The finding can be explained due to

landowners’ social position and role in management activities. Furthermore, among

landowners, nanjai farmers show a higher holistic vision than punjai farmers. The

difference can be due to the closer relation of nanjai farmers with the tank through

the use of its surface water. For example, when examining the question on the silt

location, we found that 100% of nanjai farmers knew the best place to take the silt.

We found a significant difference performing cross tabs and Chi-square test.

We also found that participation and training influence the social perception of

water tanks as ecosystems. People who have been trained by some NGO have a

more ecosystemic perception of water tanks than people who have not received

such training. People who had carried out management duties at whatever level

(Panchayat, Self Help Group managing, WUA, financial duties or agricultural

managing, for example), were able to make more complex relations of different

6 Water stored in the tank below the sluice level that can not be used for irrigation.


www.periferia.name


25

elements. This eases their perception of the elements of the ecosystem and their

relations. For example, 73% of the people experienced in management activities or

trained by NGOs knew the ecological functions of trees located on the bund, but

only 35% of the non-experienced people knew it. There is a significant difference

between these two groups when performing cross tabs and Chi-square test. We can

see also the same result in the whole analysis of the knowledge scores (see Table

2), where it is found the significant difference in knowledge among the people who

participate in managing activities or have been trained by some NGOs and other

institutions.

We also found gendered differences in tank ecosystem perception. Women use

different resources and services of the water tank than men due to the gender

domestic labour divison. Services used by women include washing clothes and

collection of medicinal plants and firewood. Women’s different perception is shown

in the free-listing exercise where those items are more salient in women’s than in

men’s freelisting. Men are typically in charge of the management tasks, and this is

the reason why we did not find significant differences when analyzing the quantity

of uses in the uses test score by gender. The management task done by men

creates a more holistic vision of the ecosystem in general, and this is shown in the

significant differences in the knowledge scores.

Despite important differences in people’s knowledge according to socio-economic

characteristics, we did not find differences in the diversity of people’s uses of the

tank. The finding can be interpreted as that although uses change from one group

to another, everybody in the village use the tank for some reason (irrigation,

auctions participation, collection of silt and medicinal plants, consumption of natural

resources, washing clothes, bathing, drinking cattle or roofing with grass). This

important finding contributes to consider the relevance of the water tank

functioning as ecosystem and the need of an integrated management considering

all the resources, uses, functions and stakeholders.


www.periferia.name


26

Conclusions

The ecosystemic approach to the water tank system allows the consideration of all

the resources, uses, functions, and stakeholders related to water tanks. The

proposed approach enhances the value of water tanks serving the population and

giving the essential structure to the territory. This vision suggests that water tanks

are irreplaceable by other irrigation sources. As we have shown, the beneficiaries of

water tanks uses, resources, and functions are more than WUA’s members.. We

have analyzed how different groups of stakeholders perceive and use water tanks,

and the socio-economic attributes that are associated to those perceptions. We

found that knowledge of water tanks varies across socio-economic groups,

however, we found that all the respondents use the tank differently but with similar

intensity. The finding has implications in the water tank’s management. A possible

explanation for the serious deficiencies of the current management of water tanks

relates to the exclusion in the participation in the management of a large number of

stakeholders, a problem which will not be solved with the concept of the WUA

implemented in Tamil Nadu.

Finally, it is pertinent to note that an integral management of the entire water tank

ecosystem is a reason and a requirement for a “decentralized and participatory

management policy”, as the higher level institutions (i.e., the World Bank and the

State and Central Governments of India) pretend theoretically with their current

policies. A decentralized management can be only achieved by considering tanks as

ecosystems and their multiple services, and by including the local population in the

tank management. The integrated management of tank ecosystems becomes also a

requirement for an integrated approach in the watershed management scale. It is

necessary to manage integrally the watershed to have a suitable integral

management of each water tank ecosystem at local level. In this sense, it is very

important to consider the cooperation between villages within a cascade connection

of their tanks in a context of decentralized but coordinated management.


www.periferia.name


27

References

Agarwal, B. (2001). “Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender:An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework”. World Development. Vol.29, No. 10, pp. 1623-1648.

Bernard, H. Russell. (1995). Research Methods in Anthropology. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.

Census of India. (1995). Census of India 1991, Tamil Nadu, Delhi: Office of the Registrar General.

Census of India. (2002). Census Info India 2001 v.1, CD format. Delhi: Registrar General and Census Commissioner.

FERAL (Foundation for Ecological Research, Advocacy and Learning) (2005). Resource handbook. Planning and monitoring collective local resource management in the Kalivelli watershed. Pondicherry: Foundation for Ecological Research, Advocacy and Learning.

Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (2000). La Ciencia Posnormal. Ciencia con la gente. First Edition, Barcelona (Spain), Icaria, May.

India, National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (2005). The Gazzette of India. New Delhi, September 7 , Number 42

India. Tamil Nadu Farmers’ Management of irrigation systems Act 2000, Act 7 of 2001, Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette, March the 5 of 2001, Num. 178, p. 22

Janakarajan, S. (1991). Working Paper No. 97. In search of Tanks: Some Hidden Facts. Madras: Madras Institute of Development Studies, January.

Mosse, D. (2003). The rule of water. Statecraft, Ecology and Collective Action in South India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Mukundan, T. M. (1998). “The Ery Systems of South INDIA”. PPST Bulletin Num.16.

Palanisami, K. and EASTER, W. (2000). Tank irrigation in the 21st Century What next?, first published, New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.

Palanisami. K, et al. (2001). Sustainability of tank irrigation systems in South India. Coimbatore (India): Water Technology Centre Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.

Suseela,P, Sobhana, D, Chandra, K.D. Field work report (from 25.02.06 to 18.03.06) of Endiyur. Tamil Nadu., M.A.Sustainable Development, First Year, Pondicherry University.

Vaidyanathan, A. Tanks of South India. Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment. 2001.

Weller, Susan (1998). Structured interviewing and questionnaire construction. In The Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, edited by Bernard, H. Russell (Walnut Creek: Altamira Press).

water tanks as ecosystems - universitat de...

Documents